Cardinal George Pell: High Court quashes abuse convictions

[HomeschoolDad]

If he lied in this matter and wants to be reconciled with God through confession the Code of Canon Law has a special provision in this type of case.

Can. 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3G.HTM

I know it is kind of “apples and oranges” — the denunciation, and its apparent falsity, are already public knowledge — but is there an issue here of “not having to turn oneself in” as a condition of absolution?

I know we had a big dust-up here on CAF a few weeks ago, as to whether turning oneself in to civil authorities could be required as a condition of absolution — not as a penance — where someone has committed a crime, such as murder, that injured someone else and caused them a loss of some kind. Some said no, that would break the seal of the confessional. I submitted that making reparation for the sin committed — giving the murdered victim’s family closure, and accepting the just punishment of the civil authorities — would require the murderer’s turning himself in, as a matter of justice, regardless of the fact that this would disclose information that would otherwise remain unknown outside the confessional.

 

[Elf01]

What is it with people who lack the professional judicial understanding and full details think they themselves know more than Judges. They only expose their own bitter bias

Would you say the same about those who supported him when he was convicted?

 

[acanonlawyer]

If he lied in this matter and wants to be reconciled with God through confession the Code of Canon Law has a special provision in this type of case. …

It’s been a while since I read anything about the accusations against Cardinal Pell … but I don’t think anyone accused him of deviant behavior on the occasion of the sacrament of Confession, which is a necessary element of the crime mentioned in canon 982. So, if my memory serves, this canon would not apply to the accuser.

Dan

 

[Rau]

What will happen to the person who wrongly accused Cardinal Pell?

Nothing. There is no proof he committed perjury. The prosecution believed the witness and nothing in the trial process demonstrates he lied. The court has simply concluded there is a possibility that the events described by the complainant did not happen.

The reality is that there is no determination that no offence occurred. We simply don’t know.

 

[Rau]

It’s a shame it took until the High Court to squash it because that demonstrates a high level of vigilantism operating at the mid and lower levels.

No, I don’t think so. It’s a brave trial judge who sets aside a jury verdict. And two thirds of the appeal court judges were not criminal law specialists (if memory serves me). The one who was…, favoured that appeal.

 

[Rau]

This means we are all safer from wrongful conviction,

That’s the main issue for me. The idea that one believable complainant’s testimony can convict would be astonishing and terrifying.

 

[porthos11]

The level of hatred from comments by those on social media commenting on 7 news channel is horrifying. What is it with people who lack the professional judicial understanding and full details think they themselves know more than Judges. They only expose their own bitter bias

These are the same people who insisted that Cardinal Pell was guilty because he was duly convicted in a court of law.

Now that he has been acquitted by a higher court of law, they’re all “shocked” and “angry”.

All it proves is that they have convicted him in their own personal courts, not really what the courts of law say. These people have absolutely no integrity.

I hope Cardinal Pell gets ahead of the accusers and sues them first for the damage done to his name and for the year he lost in prison. I hope he wins and I hope he gets a huge compensatory and punitive award. It should be shown that no one can accuse an innocent person, subject him to that kind of suffering, and get away with it scott-free. Some heads should roll.

 

[Rau]

It should be shown that no one can accuse an innocent person, subject him to that kind of suffering, and get away with it scott-free. Some heads should roll.

We don’t know whether the cardinal is innocent, but it is right to presume that. Your remark suggests the accused lied - there has been no such determination.

I suspect no heads will roll. But the DPP and the Victorian legal system have questions to answer as to why they pursued a case that 7 High Court justices found did not establish the requisite standard of proof.

 

[FiveLinden]

What will happen to the person who wrongly accused Cardinal Pell?

The court has not said he ‘wrongly accused Cardinal Pell’. The court has said that even given the strength of the evidence given by the complainant other evidence introduced a reasonable doubt as to whether the offence took place. There is no criticism in the decision (I linked to it in another thread) of the complainant or his evidence. ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ is a high test and the court has found the prosecution did not meet this test. Lower courts had a different view, but it is the decision of this court that decides. Cardinal Pell has not been ‘found innocent’. But it has been found that there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes.

In the other thread I pointed out that the general text used by the Church is ‘credibly accused’. This is lower even than ‘balance of probabilities’.

 

[silentwitness]

The presumption of innocence is slowly disappearing in many countries…

The presumption of innocence was an important factor in western Christendom, and is tied closely to the pursuit of objective truth perhaps because of the treatment of a certain Nazarene defendant 2000 years ago.

I think there is not such a commitment to truth these days as can be seen in the @metoo and @believeallwomen movements. We seem to have gone backwards in recent years but I am so pleased that Cardinal Pell is out of gaol.

Unfortunately the charges and conviction did remove him from being the number 3 in the Vatican at a very sensitive time and some will see that as a victory.

 

[Lion_IRC]

In the other thread I pointed out that the general text used by the Church is ‘credibly accused’

Bear in mind that central to the High Court (unanimously) acquitting Cardinal Pell (on all charges) was the substantive issue that the jury failed to give due regard to defense evidence - 20 credible witnesses who testified in George Pell’s defence.

It is patently obvious that those defence witnesses were giving exculpatory evidence which effectively renders the claims of Pell’s accuser either;

• Deliberately fabricated falsehoods
• Sincerely mistaken honest beliefs
• Mental delusion/fantasy

The law of the excluded middle does not allow us to accept that the accusation against Pell can be simultaneously affirmed and negated.

 

[Rau]

It is patently obvious that those defence witnesses were giving exculpatory evidence which effectively renders the claims of Pell’s accuser either;

• Deliberately fabricated falsehoods
• Sincerely mistaken honest beliefs
• Mental delusion/fantasy

It seems the police, defence legal team, prosecution team, the jury and various judges all failed to reach that conclusion. So either it was not “patently obvious” or you assert something more sinister.

 

[Emeraldlady]

porthos11:

It should be shown that no one can accuse an innocent person, subject him to that kind of suffering, and get away with it scott-free. Some heads should roll.

We don’t know whether the cardinal is innocent, but it is right to presume that. Your remark suggests the accused lied - there has been no such determination.

I suspect no heads will roll. But the DPP and the Victorian legal system have questions to answer as to why they pursued a case that 7 High Court justices found did not establish the requisite standard of proof.

My humble prediction is that heads will roll but Cdl Pell most probably won’t be around to have the benefit of vindication.

Anthropology has noted a cycle of 30 years where the shame of lessons learned dissipates and stories repeat themselves and that’s pretty much the time lapse since the Lindy Chamberlain aquittal for killing her daughter Azaria. That case showed the power of trial by media and the lengths police will go to to secure a conviction against someone. It’s taken that long for Aus. justice to repair its credibility. And now it’s happening again. Trial by media has won the day even with an aquittal.

My hope is that through the Vaticans investigation and if there are going to be civil cases brought which will allow scrutiny of the the process in a different way, agenda’s will be uncovered and exposed.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

It is patently obvious that those defence witnesses were giving exculpatory evidence which effectively renders the claims of Pell’s accuser either;

• Deliberately fabricated falsehoods
• Sincerely mistaken honest beliefs
• Mental delusion/fantasy

It seems the police, defence legal team, prosecution team, the jury and various judges all failed to reach that conclusion. So either it was not “patently obvious” or you assert something more sinister.

WUT?
The court wasn’t engaging in mental gymnastics trying to harmonise two mutually exclusive, irreconcilable counter-factuals.

The court(s) had to decide which of the competing fact claims was more believable.

You can’t believe that Pell was simultaneously on the steps of St Pats Cathedral visible to hundreds of people and alone in the sacristy with his (anonymous) accuser.

This is not a matter of suggesting “something more sinister”. This is logic 101.

 

[FiveLinden]

The law of the excluded middle does not allow us to accept that the accusation against Pell can be simultaneously affirmed and negated.

But did anyone suggest that the accusation be affirmed and denied? It’s an accusation that remains that - the only thing we know is that other evidences means it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that, in law, Cardinal Pell is innocent. It is a legal finding, not a finding of historical fact.

 

[FiveLinden]

The court(s) had to decide which of the competing fact claims was more believable.

Not quite. The court decided that the competing claim of alibi was possible, and that therefore there was a reasonable doubt. It did not decide that the alibi was true.

 

[Rau]

The court(s) had to decide which of the competing fact claims was more believable.

No, it did not. It had to decide whether all the evidence put established the events “beyond reasonable doubt”. A reasonable doubt does not require the defence case to be stronger than the prosecution case. The burden sits with the prosecution. They are required to have not just a better case, but a much better case. They did not.

 

[Rau]

The court has said that even given the strength of the evidence given by the complainant other evidence introduced a reasonable doubt as to whether the offence took place.

One wonders what if happenstance had not enabled the Cardinal to provide evidence that he was not present. Is there an implication that the complainants testimony alone could constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[FiveLinden]

One wonders what if happenstance had not enabled the Cardinal to provide evidence that he was not present. Is there an implication that the complainants testimony alone could constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt?

Yes it is clear form the decision (I linked to it in another thread) that a person could be found guilty on the basis of one person’s evidence. I think this happens a lot in historical sex abuse cases. Also cases where a single witness is relied on for, say, robbery charges. I know of cases where the evidence seemed to me to be less than the evidence in Cardinal Pell’s case where there was a guilty verdict upheld through appeals. And of other cases where it seemed to me that there was more evidence and the person was found not guilty. I read research somewhere that compare people who read media reports of cases with people who read transcripts of evidence. Those who read the transcripts were more likely to agree with the findings than those relying on media reports.

It is a flawed system, but maybe the best of a number of flawed systems.

 

[Lion_IRC]

• Deliberately fabricated falsehoods
• Sincerely mistaken honest beliefs
• Mental delusion/fantasy

@Rau @FiveLinden

If Cardinal Pell did not commit the acts which his accuser alleged, then which of the above three options do you think accounts for the reasonable doubt to which an innocent person (like Pell) is entitled. His accuser said ‘black’. Pell said ‘white’. Both cannot be right.

Conversely, if another (different) accused person were to say they did not commit a crime which in fact they had done, what options are we left with other than to conclude that they were either;

• lying about their innocence
• sincerely mistaken in their belief that were innocent
• mentally incompetent to stand trial